GUJRAT STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVLOPMENT BANK LTD.versusSTATE OF GUJARAT

     R/CR.MA/5334/2026                             ORDER DATED: 14/08/2026




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO.
                        5334 of 2026

              In F/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION/9007/2026
==========================================================
       GUJRAT STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL
                     DEVLOPMENT BANK LTD.
                             Versus
                    STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.AMIT R JOSHI(6682) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS. C.M. SHAH, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
 CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO

                            Date : 14/08/2026

                             ORAL ORDER


1.     Rule is served to the respondent No.2, but when the

matter is called out, none has appeared for the respondent

No.2 either in-person or through an advocate.


2.     The present application seeks condonation of delay of

169 days in preferring the accompanying Criminal Revision

Application challenging the judgment and order passed by the

learned Sessions Judge a'irming the conviction and sentence

recorded by the learned Trial Court.


4.     The applicant has explained the delay by stating that

after pronouncement of the impugned judgment, certi)ed



                                Page 1 of 4
     R/CR.MA/5334/2026                                     ORDER DATED: 14/08/2026




copies were obtained, legal advice was sought and necessary

documents required for )ling the revision application were

collected.       It      is   contended     that    the   delay    was      neither

intentional           nor      deliberate     but     occasioned          due        to

circumstances beyond the control of the applicant.


5.     I have considered the submissions of the learned

advocate and perused the material placed on record.


7.     The law relating to condonation of delay is no longer res

integra. In Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst.

Katiji reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107, the Hon’ble Supreme

Court has observed that a liberal approach should ordinarily

be adopted while considering applications for condonation of

delay so as to advance substantial justice. The Court observed

that refusal to condone delay may result in a meritorious

matter being thrown out at the threshold and cause of justice

being defeated.


8.     In N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy reported in

(1998) 7 SCC 123, the Supreme Court has observed that the

length of delay is not material; what is material is the

acceptability of the explanation. It was further held that

unless mala )des or gross negligence are imputable to the


                                      Page 2 of 4
      R/CR.MA/5334/2026                     ORDER DATED: 14/08/2026




party seeking condonation, the Court should lean in favour of

deciding matters on merits.


9.      The Supreme Court has also reiterated in several

subsequent decisions that while “su'icient cause” must be

established, the expression should receive a pragmatic and

justice-oriented interpretation where refusal to condone delay

would result in denial of a statutory remedy and where no

serious prejudice is demonstrated by the opposite side.


10.     In the present case, the delay is of 169 days. The

explanation furnished by the applicant cannot be said to be

lacking in bona )des. There is nothing on record to indicate

that the delay was deliberate, intentional or actuated by any

ulterior motive. Equally, no irreparable prejudice is shown to

be caused to the respondent if the delay is condoned. On the

contrary, refusal to condone the delay would result in the

applicant being deprived of an opportunity to challenge the

impugned judgment on merits in exercise of the revisional

jurisdiction of this Court.


11.     Having regard to the nature of the proceedings, the

explanation tendered by the applicant and the principles laid

down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court is satis)ed


                              Page 3 of 4
      R/CR.MA/5334/2026                                                  ORDER DATED: 14/08/2026




that su'icient cause has been made out for condonation of

delay. Accordingly, the application is allowed.


12.     The delay of 169 days in )ling the Criminal Revision

Application is condoned.


13.     Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid term.




                                                                                    (S. V. PINTO,J)
ROHAN SONI
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: ROHAN SONI(HC02356), ENGLISH STENO GRADE-II\, at High Court of Gujarat on 14/08/2026 16:12:52




                                               Page 4 of 4